Aussies scared to death of this guy. Why?
Snoop Dogg denied Aussie visa – National – theage.com.au — What kind of crap is this? Is the guy a revolutionary? Or is this some political BS done at a high level? It stinks. While I’m not a fan of this character there is something fishy about this.
US rapper Snoop Dogg is being denied entry to Australia after failing a character test, the federal government says. The cancellation of the rapper, record producer and actor’s visa means he will not be able to appear at the MTV Australian Video Music Awards this weekend, as planned.
But this afternoon, MTV put out a defiant statement saying that they are cooperating with immigration officials after the cancellation of Snoop’s visa, but hope he will still be allowed in to perform at this year’s MTV Video Music Awards.
found by Craig jones
29. Dont have to, aint got one. but if’n I did, well, do they stll make chastity belts?
It’s their right to keep out anyone they choose. It’s their country.
I would not allow Snoop Dog in my house, so I completely understand.
What’s too bad is the influence this creep has on young people who are too inexperienced to know a load of BS when you smell it.
When Mr Dogg is out of his country his “rights” are subject to mediation by the laws of the land he may be visiting. Australia has Laws to regulate entry by individuals who have shown “bad character” You don’t even have to look past the US entry requirements for the same treatment. I can’t see any reasonable argument that his character is anything other than bad by most people’s standards. Try a google search for – united states denies entry to * in google for yourself. It is easy to argue that many people denied entry to other countries on “moral” grounds are having their rights (as understood in their own country) violated.
Russel Crowe is a New Zealander but that is beside the point. He needed deporting after his hissy fit.
With that record he wouldn’t be allowed into the US if he wasn’t already a citizen. What’s the problem with not allowing him elsewhere? He’s famous so just let him in?
I’d play video games with him. So what if he smoked some weed, did some blow and popped a cap in somebody’s ass. He is a victim of his environment. We should be paying him reparations for the slavery of his ancestors too.
LMAO @ #35
Calvin Broadus = Known piece of shit. I salute the Aussies.
Snoop was not allowed into the UK just a few weeks ago to play in a concert with some other group for the same reasons.
The US. has basically the same stuff going on, as well as Japan and many other countries. A lot of music groups and solo folks are denied entry to many countries every year due to past drug busts or weapons charges.
Sylvester Stallone was a recent American ‘star’ to visit Australia and he was found to have illegal drugs (steroids) on his plane. Why should they bother letting Snoop into the country (he’s already had one previous warning when he went there for drugs) when they feel he’s just going to re-offend?
As #38 pointed out, this is hardly new. He was refused entry to the UK last month:
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/news/article2390866.ece
I had my picture taken with his bodyguard a couple of years ago – now THERE’s a big guy!
Jack.
1: Bush snorted coke and was convicted of drunk driving, and somehow walked away from desertion of his post during a time of war. By any measure, he fails the criminality test and shouldn’t be allowed into Australia. Or Canada, now that they are checking forty-year-old criminal data from the US for use in denying entry to “criminals”. Any number of famous rich men are by definition character-free criminals, yet somehow manage to fly around freely. Snoop would be different, because….?
From the comments here, I think we have a winner. White anti-black rascism for the crown!
Lauren the Bigot is in love! When I don’t paricipate in a thread he goes looking for me. Since Lauren asked, I will express an opinion.
•I don’t see anything wrong with excluding some visitors from a country as long as the exclusions are rational and nondiscriminatory when it comes to matters such as race, gender and sexual preference. For example, I would support exclusions based on convictions for violent crimes, but not class B and C misdemeanors.
•The Australian government does not exclude most felons who seek to visit. The amount of work involved to determine the criminal history of every potential visitor would be substantial and the task often impossible. In the U.S., criminal matters are usually subject to state law. In many states, municipalities don’t even fully report their court records to the state, not to mention nationally. It simply would not be worth the time and money for a foreign government to ferret out that information. So, the exclusion of Snoop is selective, related to his celebrity status and well-known criminal history. Most folks don’t have to worry about this happening, regardless of their criminal history.
•I don’t think the vicititudes of pop culture celebrities are important enough to get very upset about. Frankly, I can’t spend more than few minutes focusing on who Anna Nicole’s baby’s daddy is, how many times 50 Cent has been shot or Sheryl Crow’s toilet habits. Just not the kind of thing that interests me much. If Toni Morrison were the person being excluded from Australia, I would be much more interested.
•This episode plays into the hands of racists because they are always looking for something they can use to claim the African-American population is unworthy of humane treatment. Gangsta rap has become one of their favorite tools for that purpose. However, the fact that racists can use of something for their purposes does not mean that the thing is not pathological. Truth of the matter is that racists would be cheering the exclusion even more if the excludee were Barack Obama.
Keep the flowers, Lauren.
#41
“1: Bush snorted coke and was convicted of drunk driving, and somehow walked away from desertion of his post during a time of war. By any measure, he fails the criminality test and shouldn’t be allowed into Australia…. Snoop would be different, because….?”
I agree 100%. I think we should impeach G.W. Bush on grounds that he does not have the moral character to be President of the United States. Of course very few, if any, of the people in politics today would qualify either 😉
You’re all are jealous of him because he looks like a geek but gets as much p*ssy as a NFL star 😉
Austrilia is afraid that Snoop will get pimp slapped by Don Imus
#45 – Angel
“You’re all are jealous of him because he looks like a geek but gets as much p*ssy as a NFL star ”
I guess we’re so far past thinking that it doesn’t even occur to you that that statement is a flawless, sparkling example of the most foul, despicable, yes, male chauvinist objectification of women, reducing females to their sex organs…
I don’t give, as Bela Lugosi used to say, ‘two fucks’ for most of the strident, neo-Marxist, male-bashing so-called “feminists” of the last 20-some years; the battle, really, just like the Civil Rights battle, is over. Women won. Blacks won. Fuck the lazy, greedy clots who persist in milking it for all the unfair, anti-equality advantage they can, with the help of the Dworkins and Sharptons of today’s world.
But I’ll be Goddamned if I’m gonna give you a free pass to cavalierly insult 50% of the human race and still try to pass yourself off as “liberal”. You wanna call Crystal Mangum a ‘ho’? Have at it. Wanna call Ann Coulter a psycho cunt? Be my guest. But when you refer to women-in-general as “pussy”, there is absolutely zero excuse, no fucking difference from referring to every black, from Will Smith to Bushwick Bill, as N-words…
Totally unacceptable. Even whores, as a group, in general, don’t deseve being referred to as “pussy.”
And what man could give a shit about how much he gets? All you have to do is consider the quality, not, like some horny adolescent jerkoff, the quantity. The kind of woman who’d fuck a scum-sucking sack ‘o shit like old Cordozar there isn’t fit to wipe my ass. Unlike him – and you, apparently – I have standards. 😀
• • • • • •
Podperson –
“Keep the flowers, Lauren.”
Aww, g’wan – take ’em.
But seriously – you’re actually demonstrating deviance from prescribed PC dogma. I might applaud – as soon as I figure out whether you’re actually being intellectually honest – in which case there’s hope that, with time and some study of logic and probability, you’ll see the light and join the ranks of genuine, small-“L” liberals – or if your reasoning abilities are actually completely unimpaired and the ideological crap you champion is merely the cynical, manipulative product of a devious, skilled artist in Marxist propaganda…
IOW – I’ll get back to ya. 😛
#41 – catbeller
Since you’ve shown good sense on more than one occasion, I’m gonna restrain myself here, even though your argument is a reeking pile of PC horseshit.
“1: Bush snorted coke and was convicted of drunk driving, and somehow walked away from desertion of his post during a time of war. By any measure, he fails the criminality test and shouldn’t be allowed into Australia. Or Canada, now that they are checking forty-year-old criminal data from the US for use in denying entry to “criminals”.”
No, you don’t. Crafty, but it’s still shit. It’s quite obviously not by any measure, since his election to the Presidency of the US proves that – by the measure of the US legal system – that he is not regarded as a gun-toting, crack-dealing ex-con, which your boyfriend Cordozar is. Bush is also a Head of State; Cordozar is, in case you hadn’t noticed, not.
So let’s recap, shall we? Dubya = nonfelon, never known for dealing crack or toting a gun, never a ‘person of interest’ in any homicide investigations – also, President of the United States.
Cordozar = gun-toting, crack-dealing felon, involved in numerous homicides – also, not President of the United States.
Damn! Looks like you’re right! A definite double standard at work here!
“Any number of famous rich men are by definition character-free criminals, yet somehow manage to fly around freely. Snoop would be different, because….?”
Really? “Any” number? To once again quote the always-relevant Paul Rodriguez, “Could you be a little more vague?” Just for fun, fuck the rhetorical sweeping generalizations, eh? How’s about a number?
Got names, chum? Offhand, I can only come up with two rich ex-cons with violent histories, Bobby Durst and Orenthal Simpson – and they are also personae non grata just about everywhere – you don’t see them going to Australia or Canada or the UK either…
But feel free to name names and add to that list…
Now we come to your Logic-Free™® conclusion;
“From the comments here, I think we have a winner. White anti-black rascism for the crown!”
Uh, very nice, very nice indeed – except, in the 40 comments that preceded yours, who the fuck besides you – and the two slackjawed asswipes at #s 2 & 36 – suggested race had anything to do with it?
Know what? Remember what I said up top there, how I’m gonna restrain myself? Well, guess what; I changed my mind.
You’re just another fucking smug, holier-than-thou, gullible, brainwashed, judgemental PC idiot. Grow the fuck up – and shut the fuck up. 🙂
#47, Larry Fishbreath,
I guess we’re so far past thinking that it doesn’t even occur to you that that statement is a flawless, sparkling example of the most foul, despicable, yes, male chauvinist objectification of women, reducing females to their sex organs…
I guess it doesn’t occur to you in your alcohol and drug hazed mind that Angel is referring to him getting more sex then most of the people posting here. To twist that into something as bizare as what your fucked up mind is suggesting is just insane. ANY person with a normal mind would well understand what Angel means. Except you.
#48, Larry Fishbreath,
You’re just another fucking smug, holier-than-thou, gullible, brainwashed, judgemental PC idiot. Grow the fuck up – and shut the fuck up.
Comment by Lauren the Ghoti — 4/27/2007 @
Please do the world a favor and just keep your idiotic, rambling, incomprehensible, bigoted diatribes to yourself for awhile. A long while would suit many of us.